Skip to main content

Signs of These Times, or "Life Under the Relativist Dictatorship"

 

While reading Ralph Martin’s A Church in Crisis I encontered an endnote reference to a blog post by Fr. Longenecker, which sheds light on the roots of contemporary secular befuddlement:

 


RELATIVISM, IRRATIONAL RAGE AND REVOLUTION

One of the most disturbing aspects of the troubles of 2020 has been the confusion and bewilderment caused by so much uncertainty. When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic every other news report or social media link or comment has been contradictory. “Masks are useless. Everybody must wear a mask! Only sick old people will get this disease. My friend knows a guy in his forties who is an athlete and very fit and he nearly died! You can get it just from touching your groceries. The virus doesn’t transmit that way. The threat is global. Only New York City is being hit. Not us.”

We’ve seen the most amazing contradictions over the last week with the massive demonstrations. We’re supposed to observe social distancing, but thousands are encouraged to meet up and protest. There was one instruction fro the authorities circulating that said: “Outdoor meetings for social gatherings: no more than twelve people. Out door protests no more than 100” No wonder everybody is scratching their heads in not only bewilderment, but confusion fear and anxiety.

What interests me about all this is how it is reflective of the relativism in our society. For decades now some intellectuals have been telling us there is “no such thing as truth” or “if there is such a thing as truth you can’t know it for sure and you can’t state it with certainty.” The attack on truth has especially been an attack on religious truth. What no one seems to understand is the relationship between relativism, irrational rage and violent revolution.

It’s not rocket science to figure out. It works like this: if there is no such thing as truth, then all that remains as a foundation for decision making is utilitarianism and sentimentality. Utilitarianism is simply the philosophy that what works is best or what will bring the most pleasure to the most people is best. I’ve written at length about it here. Utilitarianism is what is most efficient, most useful, most practical and effective. It has no deeper moral sense or higher sense of good. Sentimentality is emotion–feelings. Without any firm basis of authority the only criteria left for decision is sentimentality and utilitarianism. These two are conditioned by propaganda. That is to say a person’s sense of what is useful and good and their emotions are determined by the people who teach them, the media they consume, the books they read and the people to whom they listen.

The result of this combination of sentimentality, utilitarianism and propaganda will be irrationality. People will have a very loose grasp of knowledge, will not be able to synthesize information in any coherent way and will paddle around in a shallow pool of emotion, social media opinion, half formed ideas and notions–all of which are coming at them from a whole range of sources of varying authenticity and evidence. So a person’s ideas and emotions will be formed from a mishmash of video games, comics, a philosophy course, a book on self help, a chat show about self awareness, greeting cards, horror films, yesterday’s news and a story their grandpa told them once.

Consequently we will see an increasing number of people who simply have no idea about anything at all responding to world events and their own circumstances like crazed animals–not having any idea of truth, any idea of manners, any idea of good behavior, right thinking or common sense at any level. Here’s an illustration of what I mean: a Tweet from some young gal who thought Hitler was better than Winston Churchill because Churchill was a heavy drinker, smoker, adulterer and racist. Hitler was a vegetarian, faithful to his one partner and a non smoker, so although he was a racist too he was a better racist than Churchill the racist. Such shallow lost sheep with their irrationality are prime fodder for any revolutionary who comes along to stoke their rage.

Where does rage come in? Well, the whole relativism schtick is nice enough when everybody is indulging in nice emotions. But we seem to forget that there are also some rather nasty emotions, and the nice emotions are all well and good when the sun in shining, but when things turn bad the nasty emotions rule the day. The rage is lurking just below the surface. The snarls are right behind the smiles. The results of relativism are that, (since there is no such thing as truth) everybody must simply be tolerant of everybody else’s truth. The problem is that people simply can’t live that way for long. They must have a truth to live for and a truth to fight for. If they are right, then the other people must be wrong, and if it is good to be right and bad to be wrong, then the wrong people must be bad people and good people should defeat bad people.

Thus the irrational rage erupts in individual hearts and in society. Furthermore, since it is irrational rage it will lead people to do irrational things. So we see people protesting racism vandalizing statues of Abraham Lincoln or we hear calls for the abolition of the police or we hear the loud lament for George Floyd, but nothing is said about the black retired police officers killed during the riots–nor do we hear of the black Christians in West Africa being kidnapped, tortured and killed by Muslims. If black lives matter surely all black lives matter.

When the irrational rage erupts, then it will come into conflict with other people with similarly irrational opinions who are equally angry, and when that happens revolution begins to roil, and since there is no recourse to truth because “Truth” has died long ago, the only way for the conflict to be resolved is for the person or party with the most firepower to win. If two insane strongmen fight there will be no reasoning, no discussion and no dialogue. There will be no discussion because discussion can only be based on a shared assumption that there is such a thing as truth that can be discovered. If both parties do not believe in truth and have stopped believing the silly nonsense of “you have your truth and I have my truth” then the only outcome is violence and the only resolution is the dominance of the strong over the weak.

Oremus.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dancing With Mr. D: Grooming the Little Children

A former pro-transgender activist said she regretted her previous work in pro-transgender activism, adding she felt she was "indoctrinated" on gender ideology in an interview with  Fox News Digital.  "I started to realize that what I had been doing at my job at the LGBT Center, it was grooming," Kay Yang, a former employee of a location in New York, said. Grooming in this context means "to get into readiness for a specific objective." Kay works as a 'deprogrammer' to help parents and children who have been 'indoctrinated' by the 'cult-like' transgender agenda. Yang herself previously went by they/them and worked as a 'trans educator' in schools for years.  Listen to her testimony.    

This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged | Gay Star News

DANCING WITH MR. D:   This video of a young boy twerking at Pride has homophobes outraged | Gay Star News : 'via Blog this'

Homosexual Marriage

The urgency of the issue of gay marriage at this time and the compelling arguments raised against it here, make this paper an important resource: Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage KATHERINE YOUNG AND PAUL NATHANSON Claim 1 : Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people. Claim 2 : Not all straight couples have children, but no one argues that their marriages are unacceptable Claim 3 : Some gay couples do have children and therefore need marriage to provide the appropriate context. Claim 4 : Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change? Claim 5 : Marriage and the family have already changed, so why not acknowledge the reality? Claim 6 : Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones. Claim 7 : Given global overpopulation, why w...

Oremus

Catholic World News  - October 23, 2015  The Synod of Bishops spent Friday, October 23, discussing a proposed final statement, which will come up for a vote, paragraph by paragraph, on Saturday. The statement was presented to the bishops on Thursday evening, with Cardinal Peter Erdo, the relator general of the Synod, introducing the text. Because the statement was available only in Italian, some Synod participant were unable to read it, and there was an angry outcry when they were told-- by Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the secretary-general of the Synod-- that no copies of the sensitive document could be taken out of the Synod Hall. Eventually Cardinal Baldiserri relented, and allowed bishops to take the text home, but insisted that they could not show the document to outside translators. For a summary:

The Body of Christ and the City of Men

      The “Statement of Principles” issued by select Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 18, disapproving of Bishops in the United States for allegedly “politicizing the Eucharist” is an example of deceitful equivocation. Essentially, the Statement maintains that the Bishops should not “politicize” the Eucharist. On this the insight of Flannery O’Connor proves enlightening: Those whose lives are not ordered by, around, and toward the Eucharist, therefore, are those whose lives are defined by some love other than love of the Christ who is present there. Rather, their lives are ordered by the earthly city, manifest in this case, by, variously, partisan political identity or individual, radially sovereign conscience. This applies across the American political spectrum, to those who deny human dignity of the unborn, the immigrant, and the person on death row. In Catholic teaching the Eucharist creates St. Augustine’s City of God, the definit...

Enlightenment thinking and "the Spirit of Vatican II"

Present in an analysis of the Enlightenment are the three themes which played an integral part in the disintegration of the liturgy: the denial of the transcendent, the resulting apostasy, and the exaltation of the community. That the movement was hostile to revealed Christianity is beyond debate. At bottom, the Enlightenment was hostile to Christian revelation for its teaching that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. In its stead, the Philosophes substituted a rational religion which emphasized the universal moral law shared by all men by virtue of their reason, not what they regarded as the untrustworthy historicity of the life message of Jesus. They saw this rational religion as a refining of, not a repudiation of Christian moral teaching. For example, the Mass, which celebrates the revelation that Christ’s sacrificial death reconciles us to the Father and each other, making present to the believer the same sacrifice of the Cross, was reduced to the mere celebration ...

Bishop Barron on Martin Luther

Bishop Robert Barron, in his June 13   article   titled "Looking at Luther With Fresh Eyes," describes Martin Luther as "a mystic of grace, someone who had fallen completely in love." Fr. describes Luther as the "undisputed father of the Reformation" and as "cantankerous, pious, very funny, shockingly anti-Semitic, deeply insightful and utterly exasperating." While admiring of Luther, Fr. adds: "I disagree with lots and lots of his ideas," without clarifications. Barron summarizes: "For at the core of Luther's life and theology was an overwhelming experience of grace. After years of trying in vain to please God through heroic moral and spiritual effort, Luther realized that, despite his unworthiness, he was loved by a God who had died to save him," adding, "Luther was an ecstatic, and the religious movement he launched [Protestantism] was 'a love affair.'" Was Dr. Luther in love with God...

Libido Redux: The Pill Circa 2014

If I were a female, and I am not, but if I were, and were Catholic, I would take seriously this read  concerning what happens when the rights of God are violated. I have written of these violations before, here . Let us pray that this snare of the prince of this world may not celebrate the 60th birthday of "the pill."

On the Contemporary U.S. Scene

M ichael Flynn made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career. When he exposed himself as vulnerable these pounced. How?? Anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations with a foreign national. Now, we aren't supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause, nor disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the  Washington Post   because it suits a partisan or personal agenda (overturning the results of an election). Current and former national security officials used their position, their sources, and their methods to destroy a political enemy. Why aren’t all Americans upset by this? Mr. Flynn is not the only recent occurrence of such. The  New York Times reports that civil servants at the EPA lobbied Congress to reject Donald Trump's nominee to run the agency because Pruitt was critical of the way the EPA was run during the Obama years.  Traditionally, civil servants follow the direction of the political ap...

Be Not Lukewarm

Is it possible that Church leaders and Catholic institutions in the U.S. are assisting the furtherance of central tenets of the secularist political and cultural plot? Have you ever read of a prominent Catholic who contends that the Bible instructs us not to judge people ? How often have you heard this phrase in the social media? I think there is the phenomena of an unsuspecting acceptance in some Catholic circles of a secularist understanding of important cultural issues. If a Catholic supports the notion that men who have sex with men, or women who have sex with women “come out,” he or she assists the Gay agenda in achieving its dream of getting an imprimatur from society for grave sin. Many Catholics, woefully ignorant of Catholic moral teaching, by default seem to be accepting of secularist identity politics and the groundless idea that same-sex attraction is innate, and the defining characteristic for those aggrieved by it. Often such Catholics cite the homosexual pries...